MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891904278 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v44i05a02

An overview of the National Microbiology Laboratory emergency management program

2018· article· en· W2891904278 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
D Marcino, Kimberly Y. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsCanadian Public Health AssociationPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency managementStandardizationCertificationNoticeMedical emergencyQuality managementEngineering managementEngineeringMedicineProcess managementOperations managementManagement systemComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) emergency management program was developed after the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak to provide a framework for the responses to public health events. The program comprises three components (Site response, Continuity and Site support) that have adopted the Incident Command System (ICS) as their management structure and follows the four phases of emergency management. All program components have extensive competency-based training for staff and exercise plans. The emergency management program ensures quality and continuous improvement through its certification in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 and structured review processes. This means that the Operations Centre can be activated and working at optimum capacity with highly trained and experienced staff within an hour of receiving notice to begin a response. The NML can also send mobile laboratories to aid Canadian or international efforts to address outbreaks or bioterrorism events.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207